Appeal No. 2001-1678
Application No. 09/001,729
Appellants argue, inter alia, that there has been no showing of a suggestion from
the prior art for combining the noticed subject matter with Klingman. Appellants’
position is that Klingman has no use for the “routing” that is claimed. (Brief at 11-12).
The examiner responds (Answer at 6-7) that Klingman shows a type of “routing,”
and when modified to include the EWT feature would meet the terms of the claims.
We note that appellants respond in turn (Reply Brief at 6-14) as if the rejection of
claims 6-8 were based on a combination of references. However, absent entry of new
grounds of rejection, the patents cited in addition to Klingman may be used only for the
limited purpose of showing the facts officially noticed by the examiner.
Instant claim 6 requires that routing parameters are stored at each station after
receipt and are used by each station in routing telephone calls. We agree with
appellants that the evidence relied upon in the rejection of claim 6 is not sufficient to
establish prima facie obviousness of the subject matter.
Although “routing parameters” and “estimated wait times” may have been known
at the time of invention, there has been no showing that the artisan, absent hindsight of
the instant invention, would have applied routing parameters for storage at each station
for the purpose of routing telephone calls. In particular, the rejection does not point out,
and we do not find, any suggestion in Klingman that the routing of telephone calls was
contemplated in relation to the ring network that is disclosed. Klingman provides four
specific examples of use for the network (col. 7, ll. 25-29); absent is any suggestion for
any kind of “call center” application -- notwithstanding the examiner’s indication at page
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007